Good luck with whatever you will be doing in the future.

As befits a swansong the article clearly succintly summarises the political consternation and dilemmas of Nepal.

The Maoists represent the most important and complex political movement of our time. To have a simplistic black and white view about them is just foolish. This column has criticised Maoist ...

Criticised the Maoists for everything except their fundamental principle- that violence is an acceptable route to political power. This is something that needed to be drummed in to all Nepalis again and again and again but you chose to ignore it or mention it only obliquely and with excuses. There is no complexity to Maoist politics. Use violence to achieve political power. Can't be more simple than that.�

But I do believe that the entry of the Maoists into the political structure has deepened Nepali democracy.

If so, you are deluding yourself. The Maoists have put back the development of democracy in Nepal by at least a generation. But then you are not alone in this delusion. Virtually all the political parties hoped to further their own political agenda in the chaos caused by the Maoist violence. They preferred this to the hard slog of democratic consensus building. A quick fix solution as a substitute to hard work. That is not how democracy works and you, of all people, should have recognised this and loudly said so. As and when the new constitution is completed we will have gone back to the position of 2047 in terms of political development.

While the Maoist model of the state is unacceptable, their presence offers us a chance to debate how to go beyond merely formalistic liberal democracy, which as we saw in the 1990s is a necessary but not sufficient system to address popular aspirations in this deeply unequal society.

After all is said and done you are going to end up with a constitution that is not much different to the last one. There is nothing that will be in the new constitution that couldn't have been achieved by amending the previous constitution. The CA was offered as �a sop to the Maoists. To the Maoists it was a useful tool in their final goal of establishing their totalitarian system. You fell for the Maoist spiel.�

But as the Maoists get 'mainstreamed', their degeneration has been rapid.

Hardly surprising. They have no politics other than to be in power- by violence if needed.

Their short-term tactical moves risk pushing Nepal into another prolonged conflict, albeit of a different kind.

Yes, but with plenty of helping hands in Nepal. And don't forget that the Maoists too enjoyed Indian "hospitality" for a long time. If it was OK for the Indians to impose the 12 point agreement (among others) how can you complain about other impositions?

The �hypocritical attitude to using violence as a political tool lies at the heart of the political mess that Nepal is in now. Too many people, including you, have been willing to accept the fruits of violence which means your principles are too compromised for you to oppose violence. And you have been at the forefront of championing this hypocrisy.�

Rightly explained and a well deserved round of applause Prashant! I'll miss you in Nepali Times though I'm pretty sure you've a bright future wherever you are.  Just ignore nepali rightists and write what you think the best for nepali democracy, those who believe in freedom of thoughts appreciated Prashant's writing and will in future as well. keep it up!

Although I often disagreed with Mr. Jha's analysis, I did always appreciate his clearly written prose, courteous style and uniquely Madheshi perspective.  I will at the very least miss the editorial variety that he provided to these pages.

That said, I found his final discourse regarding the Maoists and their putative role in Nepal's nation building experiment to be rather unsatisfying.  I know that Mr. Jha is neither a Maoist, nor anything even remotely resembling one.  But then, my primary arguments have never been directed against the Maoists or their most enthusiastic armchair champions.  Such people are frankly too deluded to even bother noticing.  My primary argument has always been against the oft-repeated refrain, reproduced yet again in Mr. Jha's final article, that the Maoists' flawed integration into the political process will "deepen" Nepali democracy.

The Republic and CA are indeed the offspring first and foremost of the Maoists, as Mr. Jha correctly points out.  No one else in Nepal's spectrum of political groupings even considered adopting these programs until the recalibration of their own platforms that these parties undertook to entice the Maobadis into the mainstream.  Nor, in hindsight, is it easy to see what either program has benefited Nepal.  The CA is an unsalvageable failure which has yet to demonstrate any capacity to produce a new organic law for Nepal.  The document it is tasked to replace [that of 1990] was itself fully democratic and there has yet to be any public forum or debate as to its merits and supposed demerits.  As for the Republic itself, please try to bear in mind that republicanism does not automatically equate to progress by default.  Iran, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan come to mind rather quickly.  The institutional failure of Nepal's own ganatantric experiment may put it in that unflattering company sooner rather than later.

Equality and inclusion are noble goals to pursue, but this need not entail the wholesale dismantling, reimagining and/or restructuring of the "merely formalistic liberal democracy" of the 1990's, particularly when no one in the Nepali political spectrum, least of all the Maoists themselves, has anything credible to offer for substitution or even recalibration.  The militant far left are not the forces to be relied upon for a more inclusive society, at least from the perspective of those of us who still believe that both the form and spirit of liberal democracy are worth preserving intact.  The "peace process" enshrined in the CPA foolishly handed the balance of internal force and the primary political initiative to the Maoists and their fellow travellers on the far left, restraining Nepal's legitimate armed force whilst placing no real restrictions on the activities of a largely unreformed insurgency movement.  This asymmetry of force does not give the Maoists any real incentive to reform themselves, but only to continually escalate their importunities against the state.  Mr. Jha is correct to label the political model offered by the Maoists as "unacceptable"; I would carry the point further by arguing that their methods of exploiting (not ameliorating) longstanding inequalities for the sake of their revolutionary program encapsulates an attitute which simply cannot be accomodated in a parliamentary system, has nothing at all to offer a liberal democracy, and can only make the day of a genuinely equitable and inclusive Nepal even further off.

New Delhi's "hardline position" against the Maoists is an inevitable and necessary adjustment of Indian policy in the wake of the manifest failure of the conciliatory policy India adopted towards the Maoists in 2005 under pressure from the ciminally idiotic Sitaram Yechuri and his Left Front cohorts.  That policy has created an unbiddable monster in the form of a Maoist-dominated Nepal and a worsening Maoist revolt within India's own borders.  India has belatedly realized that its own intrinsic interests have been imperilled by a disastrous policy which, far from delivering a pliant Bhutanesque lapdog in post-monarchy Nepal, has instead multiplied the South Block's headaches.  And from a purely domestic viewpoint, the risk of emboldening Maoist hardliners through marginalization is easily outweighed by the risk of actually allowing these spree-killing brigands free access to the reins of state. 

I hope that Mr. Jha will take this as nothing more than a constructive counterargument from someone who would never have the temerity to call him either a Maoist sympathizer or an Indian agent.  Your perspective will be missed, and I for one will be interested to see how your own analytical lens may evolve as Nepal's politics continue their Byzantine contortions in the years to come.

The 2006 People's Movement would have been impossible without them, and democrats who pretend to have done them a great favour forget that their own movement was confined to the vicinity of Ratna Park before the participation of the rebels.

This statement is a good example of your immature attitude towards democracy and the democratic process. And also a serious deficit of logical thinking. The 2006 People's movement would not have been necessary but for Maoist violence. The whole Maoist farce is �and was a distraction in the the political development of Nepal. This is like arguing that breaking your leg was good for you because you then got to spend a month in hospital resting.

It also shows your lack of understanding of the democratic process and democratic principles. The ability to gather together a crowd by itself is not an indication of popular support- those who have lived through the Panchayat system will recognise this. It takes time and persuasion to convince people. It is this impatience that has made people like you mistake Maoist slogans and agitation for true political change.

The mistake the non maoist parties made was is not sticking to their principle of non violence. Abandonment of violence should have been a precondition for negotiations with the Maoists. This would have delayed their victory but ultimately they would have won- against both the palace and� the Maoists- simultaneously. �Sure, in the short term they may have been unpopular but this is hard slog that is required for democracy and our leaders failed us. Instead they chose the apparently more easy and populist route which has landed us in the mess that we are in now.

Sacrificing short term apparent political gain at the expense of abandoning a fundamental principle is always a mistake and Girija and the Congress fell for it.

As a member of the intellectual elite you should have seen this but either didn't or chose not to. Which is all the more disappointing because you are one of the more clear headed one of the lot.

Come to think of it! Well, I never!!

Difference between those who are fresh University alumni and those who have lived a chunk of life is, the formers perhaps learn to do things right only, whereas the latters learn how to do right things.

I will miss your column, mostly because of the things you chose to focus on. Whether I agreed with you or not, I always felt that your pieces picked on the most important angle, and went to the heart of the matter - which is a rare skill really. Good luck with whatever you do next.

Hasayo yaar Prashant le..aafule aafailai maijanne bhanthanchau yaar timi ni. Madesh issues re--katti na pahad or himal ko manche le chai k k na pako jhai..its the few politicians stupid! anyways, you guys seem to be the kingmakers and self praised know-all. people like you have helped in deepening the divide between tghe three regions of the country.

shame on you!

 

Some comments really show the level of political culture that nepali media has helped to flourish till the day, in one or another way. So Prashant, today you're needed more than ever to educate this rancid rightists of nepal. They should be shown what they stand for and who they are: putrid and inefficient rightists who were pathetically unable to understand that Nepal social unjustice brought them down.

You are right, If it has not been for violent Maoists still they'd be leaving in their den happily, after all they were taught to feel proud even of their stingy shits. The vanity is in their blood so don't get surprise. 

All the best sir.  While I have not always agreed with you, I have appreciated your insights and writing style. 

"May the wind always be at your back and the sun upon your face" - George Jung